Judgment, Based on Experience.

If the economy continues its downward spiral (which it will) and the war in Iraq continues its decline on the "what issues matter most" list (which--who knows?), it appears that whoever the Democrats nominate will win the White House. The math, fuzzy or otherwise, means that the Kerry '04 states plus one more--Ohio, anybody?--give the Dems their victory.

The Democrats are also poised to pick up a number of seats in both the House and the Senate. Physicist Bill Foster picked up former Speaker Dennis Hastert's old seat in that district's special election this past weekend. Mark Warner takes John Warner's Senate seat in Virginia; John Sununu will surely lose to Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire. A 60-seat majority, while improbable, is not impossible.

So why is there so much hand-wringing about the Democrats' primary race? Because more than anything else, it spells out the future. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, downticket races are generally hurt, not helped; swing districts from New Jersey's 3rd to New Mexico's 1st are packed with independents who are, at best, skeptical about a return to Clinton Era politics. Her strengths are in traditional Democratic strongholds, and in states that will go blue in November no matter what.

Obama, on the other hand, brings in a new generation of Democratic voters, and appeals to independents who wouldn't be averse to a McCain presidency. Though no one thinks Alaska or Alabama will be in the Democrats' column in November, huge turnouts, like the kind Obama has inspired through the primary process, would bolster Democratic chances not just in House or Senate races like Minnesota's 3rd and the open Colorado Senate seat, but for the all-important bench positions of state legislators, county commissioners, and school board.

The Democrats have a chance to be strategic as well as idealistic in this election. We can only hope that they take this long view.

Advice for Obama

On the heels of Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas, and the prospect of increasingly negative tactics on the horizon, Andrew Sullivan offers some thoughts to the Obama campaign:

1. Obama himself should not go negative directly against the Clintons. His surrogates can and should. I, for one, am perfectly happy to splash around in the muck for a while, if it means we get more transparency from the Clintons and greater awareness among Democrats of the enormous electoral risks of allowing that couple and their warring, dysfunctional teams back into the White House. But Obama needs to keep on message about his ability to say goodbye to all that, to forge a post-Rove, post-Morris politics for a country in too much trouble to be allowed to convulse into red and blue jerking knees again. The ability to go negative and positive is crucial - more crucial now, I'd say, than it will be in the fall. Limbaugh is right about this: the Clintons are far less scrupulous than McCain.

2. Obama needs to get out there door-to-door again, talk to the working poor, engage Reagan Democrats, explain his positions on the war, and the economy and healthcare, reiterate why he can get stuff done in a way that the polarizing psycho-drama of the Clintons cannot. Save the great speeches for later. More round-tables; get on a bus; show you can work as hard as she can. Stop looking so aloof.

3. Forget about the delegate math. Stop claiming you've won already or that the Clintons cannot win. Remember that your job is to win the argument about the future of the US and the world. Make this campaign about your kind of politics rather than the Clinton-Bush style of politics. This race will not be decided by a delegate count. It will be decided by a collective decision about the better candidate some time in the next few months. Math is not an argument; it's an analysis.

4. Make a speech about the Internet slurs. Stop ducking them. Confront them. Talk about your Christian faith and your childhood exposure to Islam. Tell people about your parents. Debunk that idiotic pledge of allegiance meme. Grab the flag pin issue by the lapels. Do it all at once undefensively. Yes, it will raise the profile of every single slur. But if you rebut them candidly, gracefully, calmly, you will defuse them. You can run but you can't hide from Internet crapola. So confront it; defeat it. Right now, on these issues alone, the Obama camp is actually captive to the politics of fear. Don't be.

Meanwhile, the Fix offers “Obama's Blueprint for Victory.”

1. Math Matters: The stark reality of the remaining contests is unless Clinton can win 60 plus percent of the vote in each, she is unlikely to overtake Obama in the battle for pledged delegates. That means that at the end of the nominating season (Montana and South Dakota on June 3 now that Puerto Rico has moved to June 1), it will take a significant majority of the superdelegates for Clinton to wind up as the nominee. Those are the hard numbers and they ain't likely to change. The mistake the Obama campaign made in the runup to the Ohio-Texas Two-Step is mistaking the math for a message. The math can be a compelling argument when it comes to superdelegates ("To choose Clinton is to subvert the will of voters") but average people are not swayed by the fact that the Illinois Senator has a nearly impenetrable lead among pledged delegates.

2. Fight Back (Politely): Although Obama said on Tuesday that he was happy with his campaign's strategy leading into the Ohio-Texas elections, it's clear that Clinton's decision to hit him hard on national security paid dividends. While Obama's message of hope and transformational politics has served him well to date, the endgame in the Ohio-Texas Two-Step suggests that it may be time to fight more of a trench warfare battle from here on out. The issue for Obama, of course, is that he has promised a different sort of campaign and runs the risk, if he is perceived as going negative, of losing some of the support he has built to date. The solution? Fight back in the most polite terms possible -- praising Clinton as an able public servant and the questions being raised as legitimate avenues of inquiry that Obama himself has had to answer. Asked about the campaign's new strategy on a conference call earlier this week, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said: "This is not a decision to go negative. This is an attempt to see to it that both campaigns are held to the same yardstick."

3. What Are You Hiding?: The first e-mail from the Obama campaign that arrived in The Fix inbox following the Ohio-Texas Two-Step called on Clinton to release her tax returns. But, on a conference call later Wednesday, Axelrod broadened the argument -- and in the process provided a window into the wider Obama strategy in the race. Axelrod called Clinton a "habitual non-discloser" and then later said that she has a "history on non-disclosure." Axelrod never mentioned Whitewater, the controversy over the Clinton White House travel office or the behind-closed-doors health care commission that Clinton chaired in the 1990s. He didn't have to. Expect Obama and his surrogates to trumpet the message of Clinton as secretive over the coming weeks -- using her unwillingness to release her tax returns as a symbol of a broader pattern of non-disclosure during her years in political life. Clinton's campaign has effectively leveraged the good times of her husband's presidency to their benefit; Obama will now seek to convince voters that not everything was rosy during the 1990s.

4. Guilt the Press: Clinton effectively argued with the press over the final week before March 4, repeatedly suggesting that Fourth Estate was going easy on Obama. In politics, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; by Wednesday, the Obama campaign was urging the media to more closely examine the claims of the Clinton campaign. "We are going to ask you guys to do your jobs," said Axelrod. Will this reverse-guilt tripping of the press work for Obama in the coming months?

5. Electability is Essential: With Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the official Republican nominee, Obama and his campaign will urge voters to think about the remainder of the primary race through the frame of the November election. In his speech on Tuesday night, Obama briefly congratulated Clinton but then devoted a considerable chunk of his speech to the differences between he and McCain -- a subtle signal that Obama is still preparing for a general election race. In the days following Tuesday's votes, his campaign also sought to re-invigorate the storyline that Republicans so hate Clinton that they will be motivated -- regardless of the national political environment -- to turn out and vote against her in the fall. "There's a reason Rush Limbaugh was urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in Texas," said Axelrod earlier this week. As we wrote in the Clinton blueprint, the greatest fear among Democrats is that they will somehow miss a golden opportunity to take back the White House in 2008. Clinton is pushing hard on the idea that Obama's relative dearth of foreign policy experience makes him a risk. Obama will counter with the idea that Clinton is so divisive that nominating her represents the far greater risk.

For the Benefit of Mr. McCain

Highlighting the recent tactics of the Clinton campaign, James Fallows points to their apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to regain personal glory, even if that means tearing down Barack Obama as much as possible. In the end, these tactics make it more and more likely that John McCain will be the only one benefiting from Hillary's prolonged candidacy.

In laying out his case, Fallows first looks to a column by Chuck Spinney in which he quotes Michael Gerson among others: "Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates and appeals, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."

Puncturing the idealism? "The skies will open up, the light will come down.." Sullying the character? Not a Muslim -- "as far as I know." (Yes, yes: saying that someone is a Muslim is no slur. In the circumstances..) Appeals? The Michigan and Florida delegations. Racial tensions? Passim. Plus, infamously two days before the Ohio-Texas voting: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

(Update: In a live CNN interview, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience. But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.

The conclusion of Spinney's (and Gerson's) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

In a side note, he adds some more thoughts on the “experience” question:

I mean, it's almost incredible to think about, when you consider what constitutes an "experience" edge in this election. The elder George Bush, by the time he ran for re-election, had been president for four years; vice president for eight; ambassador to the UN for two years; de facto ambassador to China for two; Congressman for four; director of the CIA for one year; plus former head of the Republican National Committee, decorated combat pilot, and commander in chief during one brief hot war and the end of the prolonged Cold War.

Moreover, in his "3 a.m." moments of real crisis, he had used his experience to make sane decisions: handling the collapse of the Soviet empire, standing up against Saddam Hussein, putting together a wartime coalition so broad and supportive that the United States may have actually made money on the Gulf War, then having the sense not to occupy Iraq. Not bad!

Nonetheless, the young, vigorous, though vastly less experienced governor of Arkansas was a better match for America's needs in 1992 -- or so Bill Clinton argued, and I believed. To hear, 16 years later, the Clinton team stress the transcendent importance of a "lifetime of experience" must drive the elder George Bush mad.

Re-thinking Michigan and Florida

Looking toward the potential re-votes in Michigan and Florida being strongly advocated by the Clinton camp, Joe Vogel lays out a case for why Obama supporters should embrace these efforts. In fact, he offers that it would speed up an Obama victory and secure his nomination by May 20th, well before the DNC Convention in August.

According to RealClearPolitics, Barack Obama currently has 1,573 total delegates to 1,464 for Hillary Clinton. Add in Michigan (128) and Florida (185) and suddenly 313 more delegates are up for grabs. Let's say Hillary wins both of these states by 12-point margins, 56-44. This will give her approximately 165 delegates to 148 for Barack Obama, a net gain of 17.

That puts Barack Obama at 1,721 to 1,629 for Hillary Clinton. Now, word is circulating in the press that 50 pledged delegates are going to come out for Barack Obama by the end of this week so if we add those in that puts him at approximately 1,771. That's when the remaining states come in. Here are my modest approximations for the states holding primaries and caucuses up to May 20th:

Wyoming: 12 delegates (8 for Obama, 4 for Clinton), Mississippi: 33 delegates (20 for Obama, 13 for Clinton), Pennsylvania: 158 delegates (74 for Obama, 84 for Clinton), Guam: 4 delegates (3 for Obama, 1 for Clinton), Indiana: 72 delegates (36 for Obama, 36 for Clinton), North Carolina: 115 delegates (65 for Obama, 50 for Clinton), West Virginia: 28 delegates (13 for Obama, 15 for Clinton), Kentucky: 51 delegates (24 for Obama, 27 for Clinton), Oregon: 52 delegates (30 for Obama, 22 for Clinton)

And the grand total is... Barack Obama: 2,034 (reaches the 2,025 threshold and wins the nomination), Hillary Clinton: 1,881

Of course, the more superdelegates start jumping to Obama (which has been the trend since February 5th), the sooner he can wrap up the nomination. It is not farfetched at all to believe he could be the presumptive nominee by May 6th.

So send the memo to the Obama campaign: Give in to Hillary's demand. Let Florida and Michigan re-vote. It only speeds up the path to the magic number.

Clinton Endorses McCain?

In "exposing" Barack Obama for what she feels is his reckless naivety and ignorance to the dangerous realities of our world, Hillary Clinton is now giving voters the impression that our safety would be in much better hands with John McCain than Barack Obama.

"I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, and I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that, and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said during a meeting with military officers and other national security experts in Washington, which was convened to discuss her own readiness for the job and her plans for dealing with the war in Afghanistan.

It's a shameless and desperate tactic and one that we will likely see more of in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary. The best interests of the party be damned, it's typical Clinton.

Veepstakes Continued...

The Financial Times provides an interesting run-down of potential running-mates for John McCain and the positives and negatives for each.

Charlie Crist, 51: (+) Popular first term Florida governor; Credited with helping McCain win the Florida primary and would probably deliver the Sunshine State again in November if chosen as VP. (-) Too moderate for many conservatives; At 51, his bachelor lifestyle is a source of intrigue – rumour mongers cannot decide whether he is a playboy or gay.

Mark Sanford, 47: (+) Second-term governor of South Carolina; Crusader against government waste – once brought live pigs into the state legislature to protest against “pork-barrel” spending. (-) Did not endorse McCain (or any other candidate) before the South Carolina primary.

Tim Pawlenty, 47: (+) Second-term governor of Minnesota – a key Republican target state; One of McCain’s staunchest supporters and a conservative rising star. (-) Failed to deliver his home state for McCain in the Republican primary.

Haley Barbour, 60: (+) Second-term governor of Mississippi; Competent and well-connected operator; One of the few people to win praise for their leadership after Hurricane Katrina. (-) His background as a powerful Washington lobbyist clashes with McCain’s image as a crusader against special interests.

Matt Blunt, 37: (+) Young first-term governor of Missouri -- traditionally an important bellweather state in presidential elections; Won the highest rating of any governor from the libertarian Cato Institute for reducing state spending; Recently announced he would not seek a second term, making him available for the VP job. (-) Backed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination; His youth could raise doubts about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief and undermine Republican attacks against Barack Obama for his inexperience.

Bobby Jindal, 36: (+) Corruption-busting governor of Louisiana and Republican rising star; His youth and Indian-American ethnicity would help neutralise the appeal of Barack Obama. (-) Less than two months into his first term – it would surely be too soon for him to quit.

Sarah Palin, 44: (+) First term governor of Alaska, with an approval rating above 80 per cent; Solid conservative; Considered the brightest female prospect in the Republican party; Mother of four and wife of a commercial fisherman, giving her populist appeal. (-) Relatively inexperienced; Comes from a politically peripheral state.

Rick Perry, 58: (+) Governor of Texas since George W. Bush stepped down in 2000; Would be a popular choice among ”red state” conservatives. (-) Is America ready for another Texas governor on a presidential ticket?

Condoleezza Rice, 53, and Colin Powell, 70: (+) Secretary of State and former Secretary of State, respectively; Would add to McCain’s foreign policy credentials and bring racial diversity to the Republican ticket. (-) Too deeply associated with the failures of the Bush administration; Both say they don’t want the job; Powell is only a year younger than McCain.

Rob Portman, 52: (+) Former US Trade Representative and White House economic adviser; Would bring economic clout to the ticket and could be an asset in his native Ohio – a crucial swing state. (-) Little known outside economic circles. Closely tied to the Bush administration.

Christopher Cox, 55: (+) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former congressman and editor of the Harvard Law Review; Would bring economic and financial experience. (-) Lacks star power.

Joseph Lieberman, 66: (+) Independent senator for Connecticut and running mate to Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket; Quit the Democrats because of his support for the war in Iraq; Would strengthen McCain’s appeal among independents and moderate Democrats. (-) Liberal views would alienate conservatives.

Mike Huckabee, 52: (+) Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor; Popular among evangelical Christians and widely admired for his good-humoured approach to campaigning; Refrained from attacking McCain. (-) Socially conservative views could alienate moderates, while his populist rhetoric alarms economic conservatives.

Mitt Romney, 60: (+) Former presidential candidate, business executive and Massachusetts governor; Emerged as McCain’s fiercest opponent; Would provide executive experience and economic knowledge. (-) Hostile relationship with McCain could be difficult to overcome.

Rudy Giuliani, 63: (+) Former presidential hopeful; Highly-respected for his leadership as New York mayor after the 9/11 attacks. (-) Could overshadow McCain; Too socially liberal for conservatives; Volatile private life.

Michael Bloomberg, 66: (+) Widely respected mayor of New York, philanthropist and billionaire owner of the Bloomberg news organisation; Recently ruled himself out as a third-party candidate; Would bring executive experience, economic clout and bipartisan appeal. (-) Quit the Republican party last year to become an independent; Too moderate and metropolitan for many Conservatives.

Steve Forbes, 60: (+) Member of the Forbes publishing dynasty and twice a Republican presidential contender in 1986 and 2000; Campaigner for lower taxes and small government. (-) Anti-tax views may be too extreme for some; Out of frontline politics for years.

John Thune, 47, Richard Burr, 52: (+) Young and solidly conservative senators for South Dakota and North Carolina, respectively. Frequently named among the Republican party’s brightest rising stars. (-) Conventional wisdom suggests it would be unwise for McCain, a longtime senator, to add another lawmaker to the ticket, given the unpopularity of Congress. The same reasoning could rule out several other senators that have been linked with the job, including Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Kay Bailey-Hutchinson of Texas.